Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen

Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/#more-61054

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

The ol ' boys at NASA

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5793914205_77d27c69cc_b.jpg

It's not rocket science, it's climate science.

Two questions.

1. How many people work or have worked at NASA.

2. Of the 1,000 years of combined professional experience that is represented by this list, how many hours were spent on climate research.

Again, no argument is put forward, just the views of some highly distinguished....dinosaurs who know nothing about climatology. 

It's strange how this affliction shows a strong correlation with the number of brain cells that have died.

NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati has issued a response. Essentially saying we are happy to discuss the science, it's a shame you have nothing useful to contribute.



Quote:

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion. "Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public. "If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

MOTR wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 7:19am:

NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati has issued a response. Essentially saying we are happy to discuss the science, it's a shame you have nothing useful to contribute. Quote: "NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion. "Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public. "If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

Someone is keeping tabs and building a page dedicated to NASA and their climate dealings.

http://www.real-science.com/poor-science-at-nasa

Seems to be offering the usual climate denier canards. How about when it puts up a legitimate peer reviewed paper you link it here.

MOTR wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Seems to be offering the usual climate denier canards. How about when it puts up a legitimate peer reviewed paper you link it here.

No problems. I am sure Roy Spencer will have his paper done soon. Unless the loony gatekeepers try blocking it again, then we may have to wait a little longer.

You mean loonies like Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing, who resigned over the publication of a fundamentally flawed paper contributed by Spencer.


Quote:

[peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. (…) the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

Quote:

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously."

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Sounds like a grounded and principled man to me.

MOTR wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

You mean loonies like Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing, who resigned over the publication of a fundamentally flawed paper contributed by Spencer. Quote: [peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. (…) the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. [quote]In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously."

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Sounds like a grounded and principled man to me.[/quote]
Yes the gatekeepers. Please provide peer-review that shuts down Spencers peer-review. You know the counter peer-review.

In your own words

Quote:

How about when it puts up a legitimate peer reviewed paper you link it here.

I think these old farts from NASA who want to blast off into Heaven and leave a Hell behind for the rest of us with their lack of 'inner' understanding for the planet they live upon, prefer to promote guys like It_is_the_Light wackos to debunk the threat to our Environment and planet.

Nuclear Holocaust was a very real threat that nearly happened.
The Pollution and over-use of our natural resources is also a very real threat that 'can' happen.

I think NASA should just stick with what it knows and that includes the fact that 'Science' doesn't know everything.

I metaphorically describe the threats of Nuclear Warfare and Pollution as bashing your pregnant wife while allowing her to be a junkie alcoholic.

...humanity can die too you know. ;)

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:24pm: You mean loonies like Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing, who resigned over the publication of a fundamentally flawed paper contributed by Spencer. Quote: [peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. (…) the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. [quote]In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously." http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf Sounds like a grounded and principled man to me.

Yes the gatekeepers. Please provide peer-review that shuts down Spencers peer-review. You know the counter peer-review.

In your own words

Quote:

How about when it puts up a legitimate peer reviewed paper you link it here.

[/quote]

We can start with Dessler 2011 if you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ngavUkmis&sns=em

Here is a fairly brutal analysis of the article to which progs is referring.


Quote:

Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article.  That ain’t news.  What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282656/climate-scientists-blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/

MOTR wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

Here is a fairly brutal analysis of the article to which progs is referring. Quote: Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article.  That ain’t news.  What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282656/climate-scientists-blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/

Is that your peer-reviewed material

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 4:56pm: Here is a fairly brutal analysis of the article to which progs is referring. Quote: Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article.  That ain’t news.  What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282656/climate-scientists-blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/ Is that your peer-reviewed material

No, mate. I clearly asked if you would like to start with Dessler 2011. I even kindly provided you with a video of the key findings, so I'm not sure how you missed it.

I foolishly thought you may have some interest in what Spencer's peers actually thought about his last paper.


Quote:

Pappas interviewed climatologists Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andrew Dessler, who eviscerated Spencer’s shoddy science: The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. “What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear.” “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer’s new study. “I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. In his paper, Spencer relies on a toy model of the climate system which geochemist Barry Bickmore (a Republican) had previously exposed as being one that could “give him essentially any answer he wanted, as long as he didn’t mind using parameters that don’t make any physical sense.”

I'm getting the impression, progs, that rather than having an interest in the truth you are latching onto anything that vaguely supports your belief. Which not surprisingly is one of the criticisms of Dr Spencer.


Quote:

Dr. Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” which states: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

Sounds to me like Dr. Spencer has his results worked out before he even starts his research. Not that this means we should ignore his work just that it should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism. Something you seem to be sadly lacking at this stage.

MOTR wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:37am:

I'm getting the impression, progs, that rather than having an interest in the truth you are latching onto anything that vaguely supports your belief. Which not surprisingly is one of the criticisms of Dr Spencer. Quote: Dr. Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” which states: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.” Sounds to me like Dr. Spencer has his results worked out before he even starts his research. Not that this means we should ignore his work just that it should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism. Something you seem to be sadly lacking at this stage.

So that is your answer to not showing peer-review when you hypocritically stated that I should.

As far as going through the gatekeeper crap Spencer cops, you can do better research or just be one of the mob. I dont care to tell the truth.

Go back several posts. Does Dessler 2011 ring any bells.

MOTR wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:54am:

Go back several posts. Does Dessler 2011 ring any bells.

Sure does and Spencer schooled him. I take it you dont remember that little gatekeeping exercise.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:13am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:54am: Go back several posts. Does Dessler 2011 ring any bells. Sure does and Spencer schooled him. I take it you dont remember that little gatekeeping exercise.

Terrific, since you understand Dessler's paper so well you can tell me what is wrong with it. Or is that just what Anthony Watts told you to say.

MOTR wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 8:13am: MOTR wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:54am: Go back several posts. Does Dessler 2011 ring any bells. Sure does and Spencer schooled him. I take it you dont remember that little gatekeeping exercise. Terrific, since you understand Dessler's paper so well you can tell me what is wrong with it. Or is that just what Anthony Watts told you to say.

Go find the information yourself seen as you want to be a smart A. We were talking Spencer and Dessler, not Watts who by the way has done more to fix the crappy land based temperature stations than any pseudo climate scientist that relied on how bad their are/were.

I'll take that to mean you trust Spencer has schooled Dessler because Watts told you so, not because you've read the Spencer and Brasswell paper, then read the Dessler paper and then read Spencer's response to Dessler. 

Or is it just that two great minds think alike.


Quote:

Dessler gets schooled by Spencer Posted on September 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/10/dessler-gets-schooled-by-spencer/

Now, progs, if you are going to outsource your thinking to somebody else perhaps you should do a bit of due diligence on the fellow.

MOTR wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

I'll take that to mean you trust Spencer has schooled Dessler because Watts told you so, not because you've read the Spencer and Brasswell paper, then read the Dessler paper and then read Spencer's response to Dessler.  Or is it just that two great minds think alike. Quote: Dessler gets schooled by Spencer Posted on September 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/10/dessler-gets-schooled-by-spencer/ Now, progs, if you are going to outsource your thinking to somebody else perhaps you should do a bit of due diligence on the fellow.

Good to see Watts knows and can use the word schooled. I am a bit surprised he did not come to me first and ask permission before using it though.

The video Watts does not want you to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM&sns=em

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 8:55am: I'll take that to mean you trust Spencer has schooled Dessler because Watts told you so, not because you've read the Spencer and Brasswell paper, then read the Dessler paper and then read Spencer's response to Dessler.  Or is it just that two great minds think alike. Quote: Dessler gets schooled by Spencer Posted on September 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/10/dessler-gets-schooled-by-spencer/ Now, progs, if you are going to outsource your thinking to somebody else perhaps you should do a bit of due diligence on the fellow. Good to see Watts knows and can use the word schooled. I am a bit surprised he did not come to me first and ask permission before using it though.

If these are your own conclusions, you can enlighten me as to why Spencer "schooled" Dessler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpa964beaxE

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:48pm:

htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpa964beaxE

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ubPgl4LPozI/T2RMMPNl14I/AAAAAAAAAhY/Hu6iStgN-bQ/s400/old%2Bfart.jpg

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:48pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpa964beaxE

That's funny. You are so gullible, progressiveslol. Do you know how many hours those 49 "scientists" have collectively spent "digging deep" into the empirical climate data. I don't either, but I suspect it's probably zero. If they have spent time analyzing the data in great depth, they certainly haven't bothered to share the results.

From watching that clip all I learnt was that from the thousands of ex NASA employees, one man, funded by the Heartland Institute, has managed to scrap together 49 of them who don't "believe" in anthropogenic global warming. As the majority of these ex employees are not scientists and none of them are climate scientists, it's a fairly pathetic appeal to inappropriate authority.

What else have you got Progs?

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 7:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 11:48pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpa964beaxE That's funny. You are so gullible, progressiveslol. Do you know how many hours those 49 "scientists" have collectively spent "digging deep" into the empirical climate data. I don't either, but I suspect it's probably zero. If they have spent time analyzing the data in great depth, they certainly haven't bothered to share the results. From watching that clip all I learnt was that from the thousands of ex NASA employees, one man, funded by the Heartland Institute, has managed to scrap together 49 of them who don't "believe" in anthropogenic global warming. As the majority of these ex employees are not scientists and none of them are climate scientists, it's a fairly pathetic appeal to inappropriate authority. What else have you got Progs?

As this thread is about the NASA employees, what I got is whatever comes along.

Say again.